I know the topic of giving and receiving offense has been thoroughly combed over in other forums, but it is such an important topic that I believe a great deal of the major points bear repeating. I want to particularly address judgment, hypocrisy, and the fauxpology. I believe that these three things (separately or combined) are the largest obstacles to creating Zion here on Earth.

It’s important when discussing judgment that it be made clear that human beings are designed to make judgments. We must make calculated decisions to protect our lives and the lives of our offspring. This includes an inborn drive to reject “the other”. This is natural—that doesn’t necessarily make it acceptable since we no longer live our natural lives. Even the most tolerant and enlightened among us (of which I certainly am not) will have a great deal of trouble truly walking a mile in another man’s shoes. I’ll simply come out and say it, judgment that attempts to infringe upon the free agency of another human being who is not hurting anyone is evil. It is. Man’s greatest gift from God is our ability to choose our own path. Mormons especially should be sensitive to this line of thinking yet sadly sometimes we are the biggest culprits. Judgment of this kind does no good for anyone and more often than not pegs us as the biggest beam-spotters and moat-havers around. Just stop it.

A prevailing theme amongst those of the judgiest sort are that they will continually ask of others more than they ask of themselves. I think we are all familiar with the term “Cafeteria Mormon”, but for those who may not be, it is exactly what it sounds like. It is when (usually members of the orthodoxy) accuse “others” of picking and choosing what they believe—either from The Bible, The BOM, or from general common law Mormon practice. They say because I curse, or I support gay marriage that I can’t possibly be Mormon. To that notion, I say I have two words for you, but I am sure you don’t want to hear them—love me. Do you know what a real heaping helping of Cafeteria Mormonism is? When God hates all the exact same people you do. It’s funny when that works out, huh? It’s funny how you missed all that stuff in scripture about Christ-like love and alighted upon a few lines in the Proclamation (which is actually not scripture). No confirmation bias or hypocrisy there I am sure.

Finally, we come to the fauxpology. The fauxpology is the mother of judgmentalism, hypocrisy, arrogance, and a total lack of empathy. For those who have never been so blessed to see (or hear) one, it looks something like this: Person A: “Incredibly offensive statement!” Person B: “Wow that was really hurtful and offensive to me.” Person A: “Well, I’m sorry you were offended, but…explanation of why I’m not actually sorry and some mental gymnastic defense usually involving my right to free speech.” The fauxpology is also a hugely passive-aggressive move—if you’re really not sorry then don’t apologize. Own your words, and realize that you also own any consequences that come with them. The right to free speech is granted by the government, not by me. You can believe that if I do not like something you say I am going to call it out. The fauxpology is condescending, and makes you look at least 1,000 times worse than if you had just left it at your stupid offensive statement. It also brings me to the crux of what I want to say; when we were baptized, we covenanted to mourn with those that mourn and comfort those that stand in need of comfort. If someone tells you that something you have said hurts them, why is that not enough? Even if your slight was unintentional, why is your ego too big to be able to apologize for inflicting even unintentional harm? Just stop it! As always, your thoughts…

Hooper “iDistrict” in Ogden, Utah

So let’s go over the pros and cons:

PROS:

1. Digital media is much easier to update than printed manuals.
2. Searching for scriptures will be much easier.
3. More resources will be available to the missionaries and investigators.
4. Videos and images can be better used for teaching.
5. Angry Birds breaks to keep the kids involved with the lessons.

CONS:

1. iPads are expensive.
2. iPads can break.
3. iPads don’t do so great in extreme temperatures. (Central America, Brazil or Rexburg, Idaho)
4. I believe missionaries will be targeted for theft, if the general population absolutely knows they are carrying an iPad. Safety might be an issue.
5. The Church might come across as out of touch if they bring an iPad into a poor home with a dirt floor.
6. Missionaries might become too dependent on videos to bring home the message and therefore their teaching skills won’t develop. IE: Picture the worst Sunday School teacher coming into class and popping in a video.
7. Droid users will be jealous.

I’m still hoping that they will talk about service missions and the Just Serve program, but alas my hopes might have to wait a few more years. I’m hoping our sources are wrong and they still announce service missions.  So what do you think are some of the Pros and Cons? Will the cost of updating printed manuals offset the cost of the iPads?

By kittenishkitten

It sounds so zen: losing my pants helped me find myself.

I felt guilty, zipped snug inside my tent wearing a short thin nightgown, with the lack of covering for my bottom half bringing such a reprieve. You see, due to a forgotten suitcase and an incident with the lake and a zip-line, the one pair of jeans I’d brought to girls’ camp lay outside, drying in the cool twilight. And I was left unable to attend the evening’s testimony meeting further up the mountain.

I was glad, and ashamed for being glad. Remembering how earlier in the week, the leaders had handed us all letters from our parents and told us to go off into the woods and have a spiritual experience. I settled by the lake’s edge, feeling sick and withered because when I read that letter, nothing sparked inside. I tried. I tried to be touched to the point of weeping, like I knew the other girls must be doing. I tried to have an overwhelming realization of my many sins with a dramatic remission afterwards, like the men in the scriptures. As usual, I came up empty. I had come up empty ever since I could remember; ever since my Primary teacher put a pen and paper in my little hands, telling me to write my testimony so that she could tape it to a balloon and release it for some lucky non-member to find. Then, like now, I looked into my heart and found only that I felt uncomfortable. Why was I wrong? Why couldn’t I make it work?

So I wasn’t exactly pleased when a girl poked her head into my tent and offered to keep me company. Was she here to “fellowship” me, the puzzle piece no one could find a place for?

“You shouldn’t have to be by yourself,” she said, “just because you don’t have pants.”

She settled across from me with a sheepish look. “Besides, I don’t really like the testimony meetings.”

Testimony meetings where you couldn’t just listen. You could sit, and sit, but nobody left until everyone took a turn. “Who hasn’t gone yet? Come on, Heidi! Just tell us what you’re feeling.”

I often went last. I always cried.

I was sure that the crying and the shaking meant that I was feeling the Spirit. And I knew it was wrong that I dreaded going up there.

But here was someone who shared in my wrongness. I felt a twinge of guilt as I smiled. “Me neither.”

We talked about writing. At that age, nothing could part me from my notebook and pen, especially on a camping trip full of cool crackling woods, slimy ponds, and a foggy lake. Jo, we’ll call her, loved to write too. And we both loved Lord of the Rings.

“Knock knock,” a voice sounded outside my tent door. “I’m here to keep the pantsless lady company.”

It was Rebecca, one of my favorites; blunt and overly familiar in a dependable way.

“I’m all right. You don’t need to miss out for me.”

“Oh, you’re doing me a favor.” She plunked down next to Jo. “What are we talking about?”

Phantom of the Opera. And two minutes later the tent door parted again.

“Can we stay with you? Testimony meeting is lame.”

“I brought you some pants.”

Once I had the pants on–big black sweats that were refreshingly dry and warm–no one suggested we leave our tent to hike up the mountain and join the others.

I felt guilty for providing an excuse for the others not participate dutifully. And guilty for talking about it with them, for smiling, for saying yeah, bearing my testimony makes me really nervous and I don’t like crying in front of people. No, I didn’t feel the Spirit in the woods the other day either.

I still felt broken. But I knew I wasn’t broken alone. And that did make it better.

Years later, I have the words and experience to express what was really happening, as we all piled in together with rumpled sleeping bags and muddy backpacks. Crammed inside my tent, we carved out a spiritual space where we could express ourselves honestly. It would take me a decade to realize I wasn’t broken or wrong; I just couldn’t speak to God in the language my teachers wanted me to use. A language written by committee, written to be tidy and efficient and safe. Put scriptures and prayer in, properly definitive testimony comes out. It works for a lot of people. But how many others don’t speak the language, and how many don’t know it’s all right to speak their own? Do they sit like I sat beside that lake, all curled up on themselves, grasping for a way to feel what everyone else says they feel?

We need more tents; more places where people feel safe enough to be honest. Maybe we need more people to lose their pants. There’s probably a metaphor in that somewhere. Maybe someday we’ll have one big tent where everyone can speak their own language and feel welcome and whole. But for that to happen, first we need more people to poke in their heads and say, “Can I keep you company? Because to tell you the truth, the way they’re talking out there makes no sense to me.”

I have attempted to stick closely to the scriptures and credible sources of scholarship and theological teachings. Rational Faiths has summarized the Biblical and archeological scholarship indicating an ancient Israelite Goddess so I would refer you to those links to find out more about the scholarship alluded to in the document.

Our Eternal Parents

A belief statement in the vein of The Living Christ

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints unequivocally proclaims the existence of God. “All things denote there is a God; yea, even the earth, and all things that are upon the face of it, yea, and its motion, yea, and also all the planets which move in their regular form do witness that there is a Supreme Creator” (Alma 30:44). Joseph Smith, founder of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and prophet, taught that “Eloheim is from the word Eloi, God, in the singular number; and by adding the word heim, it renders it Gods” (Joseph Smith, The Christian Godhead – Plurality of Gods, 371-72). Scholars of ancient scripture have found that originally El, the God of ancient Israel, was worshipped along with his consort, or wife, Asherah who was also known as Eloah, El Shaddai, Wisdom and Shekinah. Knowledge of Asherah among the people of Israel waned over time, and She has only recently been rediscovered as one of the “plain and precious truths” lost from the scriptures. Joseph Smith taught of a Goddess Mother and she is most widely remembered in the hymn by Eliza R. Snow, a Latter-day prophetess, which reads, “In the heav’ns are parents single? No! The thought makes reason stare. Truth is reason, truth eternal, tells me I’ve a mother there.”

When the world was created, They, that is the Gods, went down at the beginning and organized and formed the heavens and the earth (Abraham 4: 1). Upon the earth, man and woman were created in Their image. (Genesis 1: 26) The Family: A Proclamation to the World states: “All human beings male and female–are created in the image of God. Each is a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents.” Scripture teaches us that if we keep our covenants, then we too, male and female, shall become exalted beings and inherit all things. (Doctrine & Covenants 132:18-20).

Our Heavenly Father and Mother are perfect, all wise, and all-powerful; the rulers of the universe. They are merciful, kind, and just. They work together as equal partners, both skilled and capable of the challenges of godhood. Because we are Their children, They know and love each of us individually. They have a plan to help Their children find joy in this life and return to live with Them when this life is over. Our Eternal Parents invite the children of men all to come unto them and partake of their goodness; and They deny no one that comes unto Them, black and white, bond and free, male and female (2 Nephi 26: 33).

We affirm that our Mother and Father in Heaven are personages of flesh and bone, embodied, resurrected and perfected. Their promise is that all people have the opportunity to receive the fullness of Their glory. It is Their work and their glory to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man (Moses 1:39).

Our Heavenly Parents are knowable. Through prayer, reflection, pondering and the reception of the Holy Ghost, Their children can feel Their guidance, comfort and love. It is through prayer that the people of the earth can communicate their appreciation and gratitude for all of creation, and can request help, assistance and blessings in the work of mortality. We declare that the Holy Ghost manifests to the people of the earth and communicates our Parents’ desires for them in their lives. Our Heavenly Parents also speak through Their prophets on the earth today and through the inspired words of the faithful.

CHRIST, the Only Begotten of the Father, acted as the means by which people can overcome their fallen natures, repent of their wrongdoings, become immortal and be resurrected and, then ultimately, be reunited with their loved ones in the presence of God. It is through the atonement and resurrection of Christ that those who choose to partake in the gospel, whether during mortality or through vicarious work for the dead, can realize the hopes of this prayer: “When I leave this frail existence, when I lay this mortal by, Father, Mother may I meet you in your royal courts on high? Then at length when I’ve completed all you sent me forth to do, with your mutual approbation, let me come and dwell with you” (Hymn #292).

WE testify of the existence of our Father and Mother in Heaven, and of Their mutual love for us. We encourage the people of the earth that when they have heard these things, that they will ponder them in their hearts and pray to know the nature of God; both Our Father and Our Mother who daily love and sustain Their children. We testify that through sincere faith and a genuine desire to “hunger and thirst after righteousness” that, as individuals and together as the human family, we can together claim the blessings of exaltation.

by Michael Barker

Cathy and I on our wedding day. It will be 17 years this July 20th.

I consider myself well-read in regards to Mormon thought, theology, and history. Yet, as embarrassed as I am to say, it was not until last year that I realized that the majority of the countries where our Church is established, the temple sealing is a separate ceremony from a civil wedding ceremony. This of course is different from us in the U.S., Canada and maybe two or more other countries, where the civil wedding ceremony and the temple sealing ceremony have been combined into one ceremony.

As many of you know, in the U.S. and the other few countries where the two ceremonies have been combined, if the couple that is to be married chooses to be married civilly first, so as to include their non-LDS family members, they must wait one year before they can be sealed in the temple. This puts the LDS couple in high tension between their non-LDS families and their Church. Needless to say, there are also some social consequences if the couple does decide to be married civilly first; the assumption will be that they were not deemed worthy to be sealed in the temple because well, they were fooling around too much before they were married.

As American Mormons, we tend to be very ethnocentric in our approach to Mormonism. We often think that the way things run in the U.S. is the best and preferred way that things should occur. Regarding temple sealings and civil wedding ceremonies, I have heard U.S. Mormons explicitly state that having the two ceremonies combined is the way that it should be and that the other countries have the two ceremonies separated only because the law demands that a civil ceremony be done first. I have also heard it said explicitly that separating the two “cheapens” the temple sealing. Not only does this seem a bit ethnocentric, but also egocentric and a bit elitist.

So, I started thinking. Wouldn’t it be cool if we at rationalfaiths.com could find some international LDS members to share their stories of how beautiful and inclusive a thing it is to have the civil wedding ceremony performed first, followed later by the couple’s temple sealing? So I started hunting around for stories. Eventually this idea turned into a series that we published every Sunday for two months. It was quite a popular series. The first post was written by Clara Molina of Madrid, Spain. She shared three different stories of Mormon weddings where a public wedding ceremony was performed, and then later in the week, the sacred temple sealing ceremony was performed. The stories were beautifully inclusive and intimate and quite moving (click here to read her post).

As more and more of the essays were posted, my brothers and I started to realize that nothing was taken away from the temple sealing by being married civilly first, but the opposite happened. Having the civil wedding ceremony first, and then later in the week having the couples sealed in the temple, actually added to the sacredness of the temple sealing. This reminded me of the theological conundrum in the early Christian Church regarding the deity and humanity of Jesus of Nazareth.

The question arose in early Christianity, “If Jesus was God before he became human, then didn’t he have to give up his divinity to become human? If so, didn’t his humanity then take away from his divinity?” Tough questions. These questions led to the development of some theological ideas, such as Monophysite and Dyophysite Christology. There were some early ecumenical Church Councils that wrestled with this problem, including the Council of Chalcedon in the year 451.

The answer to this theological conundrum, I believe, seems to be that Christ’s humanity did not take away from the necessary attributes of his divinity, but instead, his humanity was added to his divinity. The intent of this post is not a religious treatise dealing with Christ’s humanity and divinity, so I’ll just simply say the answer to the question, as I have presented it, somewhat represents a 19th century idea called Kenotic Christolgy or Kenotiscism. Kenosis is from the Greek word for emptiness κένωσις (kénōsis). Theologically, it is the ‘self-emptying’ of one’s own will and becoming entirely receptive to God’s divine will. The idea comes from the apostle Paul and is used by Paul in Philippians 2:5-7:

Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, [there’s the word for kenosis – he emptied himself] taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.

Much in the same way that Christ’s divinity was added to by his humanity, so it became clear to me, through the essays written by our non-American Mormon sisters and brothers, that separating the temple sealing ceremony from the civil wedding ceremony does not take away from the divinity of the temple sealing. No, it adds to its divinity.

My brother Paul and I realized that the way things are done right now in the U.S., Canada, and a few other countries, with regards to combining the temple sealing and civil wedding ceremony, is not doctrinal – it is policy. In fact,  the 1835 edition of the Doctrine and Covenants said this:

“…we believe, that all marriages in this church of Christ of Latter Day Saints, should be solemnized in a public meeting or feast prepared for that purpose…” (Doctrine and Covenants 101:1, 1835 edition)

Seeing the beauty that comes from one’s non-LDS family being able to see the actual wedding, left us envious of our international sisters and brothers.

As the Church continues to grow, the likelihood that an LDS couple will have non-LDS family will certainly increase. With that increase will also come the increased likelihood that a couple will (in which the two ceremonies are combined) have to choose between family and the Church. It just doesn’t seem that it should be a necessary choice. Can’t this policy, that some may even regard as a policy that causes more harm than good, be changed?  Why can’t it be a choice to marry civilly first and then go to the temple later for the sealing? This doesn’t mean it has to be this way for everyone – if a couple chooses to have their temple sealing and civil marriage ceremony combined, then by all means they should. But, if the couple decides to have a civil wedding ceremony first, why make them wait the one-year moratorium, if they are temple-worthy?

To this end, rationalfaiths.com has started a new web-site, familyfirstweddings.com. There you will find stories of inclusivity that have come by the couples being allowed to be married civilly first, followed shortly by the temple sealing ceremony. You will also find stories of exclusion, when a parent or sibling could not attend the wedding because the two ceremonies were combined thus excluding the family member that wasn’t LDS.  Most importantly, we are asking you to approach the brethren in Salt Lake and ask them to inquire of  the Lord if the policy, as it presently exists in the U.S. and Canada, can be changed. Let me be clear. We are not insisting nor demanding that the policy be changed. We are not asking that those who have not made and kept sacred temple covenants, be allowed into our temples.

If you are not quite sure how to approach our leaders regarding your concern, here are two ways:

1. Write a personal, short story of how inclusive your civil wedding ceremony was and the beauty of having your temple sealing separate from your civil wedding ceremony or a short story of the pain of being excluded or having a family member excluded from a temple wedding.
2. If you are not sure what to write, please use the form letter that is found at the family first  weddings web-site.

After you have done one of the above, please mail or email your letter  prior to August 3^rd  to:

Paul Barker
3214 N. University Ave. #311
Provo, UT 84604

familyfirstweddings@gmail.com

We wish to work through official routes, so after we collect your stories and letters, we will deliver them to Church leaders in Salt Lake.  Your letters and stories will help formulate an introductory letter explaining what we are asking the brethren to consider  and will be included in the  delivered package of letters and stories.   We ask for your participation. Changing this policy will only bring about good-will and strengthen the Church’s theology of the central and prime importance of the family.

It can’t hurt to ask, right?

__________________________________

For further information on how to help, please visit familyfirstweddings.com

I work up close and personal with disability every day. When people found I was going into child neurology their first question was often, “why?” I often hear about how it’s too sad or too depressing.

Fellow physicians struggle with the fact that there often isn’t anything we can do to fix many disorders of the brain such as severe cerebral palsy or neurodegenerative disease, to name a few. Most physicians are by nature fixers and have little patience for the unfixable. Child Neurology is a little different that way. While certainly there is much more we can treat than most people realize, we do have to be comfortable with the cases that all we can do is work to make a child as comfortable and as functional as possible. At times that comfort and functionality seems very small. There is a part of human nature that makes us shrink from the deformed and debilitated. We all have that voice in our head that’s instinctively says, “eeww.” Becoming a physician for these patients involves experiencing this feeling, acknowledging it and then somehow moving beyond.

These children are blaring reminders of our limitations, of failure. Many physicians and residents I have met feel the means used to maintain their health are cruel, unnatural and a waste of resources. As a medical student I had occasion to run into a Mother who had adopted 4 or 5 children with extreme brain injury with very little function, requiring feeding through a tube in the stomach and breathing through a tube in the neck because of inability to swallow or hold the throat open. They were nonverbal and there was reason to doubt they were conscious of much at all. The Neurosurgeon referred to this woman as the patron saint of lost causes. It was puzzling to try and understand exactly what made her do the things she did to the point of it dominating and defining her life.

More than once I have heard disgust tinge the voices of other residents in talking about such individuals. On one occasion there was a patient in the ER for his 5th or 6th episode of pneumonia, a common occurrence in patients who can’t swallow. It tends to become more and more frequent in these patients leading inexorably to their passing away as if circling the drain. We treat infection after infection to try to delay the inevitable. As one resident physician came to see the patient once again for admission to the hospital, they just blurted out in disgust to their mother “What are you getting out of this!?”

I think Bono of U2 fame had an insight, inspired by the case of a child written off similarly, but who’s mother never gave up on him. He later gained movement with the aid of a new medication, a so-called miracle drug, enough to communicate with the outside world for the first time and give us a glimpse of his inner world. He even published a book of poetry. In the song, Miracle Drug from the album How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb, Bono writes from the mother’s perspective-

I want a trip inside your head
Spend the day there…
To hear the things you haven’t said
And see what you might see

I wanna hear you when you call
Do you feel anything at all?
I wanna see your thoughts take shape
And walk right out

Freedom has a scent
Like the top of a new born baby’s head

I am you and you are mine
Love makes no sense of space
And time…will disappear
Love and logic keep us clear
Reason is on our side, love…

The songs are in your eyes
I see them when you smile
I’ve had enough of romantic love
I’d give it up, yeah, I’d give it up
For a miracle, a miracle drug, a miracle drug

God I need your help tonight

Beneath the noise
Below the din
I hear your voice
It’s whispering
In science and in medicine
“I was a stranger
You took me in”

The truth is we really can’t know what is in the minds of these patients unable to communicate and bound in a broken shell of a body and brain. I think in some cases it really is quite limited, but in the case of the boy above, our common assumptions turn out to be wrong.

What is left for these parents and patients if we physicians turn away from them because of our discomfort? Who will be left to help bear their burdens, to guide them through the maze of their care? it is this question that gives me a glimpse into the motives of one who would adopt and care for so many so broken. I now realize I am not so different from the lost causes’ patron saint. The parents of my patients are some of the most courageous people I have ever met. My patients, even some of the most debilitated, can find such joy and gratitude in the smallest of gifts. They return a smile anytime they are met with one. More than one person like surprise poet above, with body broken but faculties surprisingly intact, has noted that we the “abled” often far overestimate their suffering. With good care they can be quite comfortable. The parents that give this care are angels of mercy and their service often takes over their life. Who am I to call into question a sacrifice like that?

Much of the discomfort we feel seeing them is inborn in us. Evolutionarily, we reject the broken specimens for the benefit of our species in a brutal world that demands survival of the fittest. This is the natural man. We are built to reject imperfection and see only limitation. When we recognize this, we may move past it to see something wonderful beyond it- beauty in brokenness.

In Mormon culture there is a lot of folklore attempting a theodicy to explain why these children exist. What are they getting out of mortality? It is tempting to dip into premortal existence for answers. It is very popular to suggest that these children were the noble and great ones, so far along they don’t need the “full” mortal experience.

We don’t know, We can’t know if there is any truth to claims of their premortal nobility, but one thing I am intensely aware of is that they grow, develop and learn just as we all do. While they may not be having my mortal experience or your mortal experience, it is undeniable that they are, in point of fact, having a mortal experience.

They often have a certain innocence I love, but that doesn’t mean they can’t learn, they can’t make mistakes, they can’t sin, or that they can’t repent. While these parents and those of us around them do struggle with the seeming injustice of it all, I think this folklore has a danger in that it can saccharinize disability. It trivializes their own purpose and meaning in this life. It leads to patronizing attitudes that stunt the personal growth of children with chronic disease. The fact is that they are here, fully mortal and fully human, and I believe it is for their own experience and good as with any of us.

Disabled children of all forms can end up with “vulnerable child syndrome” remaining forever an infant, never learning their own survival skills or moving beyond infancy and total dependency, not because of a lack of potential, but because of a lack of parental or societal capacity to imagine it at times. Parents have a deep set natural fear response triggered when a child is born that struggles, maybe even comes close to death at an early age. That fear can cause an inability to give the child any independence.

As Latter Day Saints, I believe our primary goal for the disabled has to be helping them grow, develop, gain agency and self sufficiency as much as humanly possible. I sincerely believe that they, like all of us, have a divine potential within. When I look at the difference in agency or ability between myself and them and then compare to the massive gulf between me and God, the difference seems small indeed. The fact is in all but the absolute most severe cases, they are progressing too, regardless of limitations.

We need to fight the inclination to lower expectations and never shut a door until we have to. Until we know what can or cannot happen, we should always ask ourselves “why not?” Why can’t this individual do whatever we would normally do? Why can’t they become a parent? Why can’t they date or socialize with the rest of us? Why can’t they live on their own and manage their own life? Furthermore, what can we do to help them? What can be done to enable them to commute, to shop, to navigate their way through education and vocation?

These individuals are often capable of great contributions beyond our wildest expectations when they are allowed to. I imagine with joy one beautiful day when they, and we, will be resurrected, restored to a perfect frame. Until then we need to encourage their independence, growth and development. I believe the Zion Society will be one in which all of our weak, our infirm, will be given the tools they need to become one with us. It will be one in which we all support, lift up, and learn from each other. Disability can be minimized and independence maximized through technology, through planning, through minimizing stigma and through the assistance of others. If we have the will, we can start building that society now.

Hmm…Could it be SATAN!!?

I have family and friends that are either in the midst of a faith crisis or have passed through their crisis and now find themselves outside of the Church.   As I have spoken with them and listened to others’ stories about their faith transitions, I have taken mental notes of what seems to help and what doesn’t  help.   So, I decided to make a “How To Guide” for dealing with friends and family who are in the middle of a faith transition:

1. You must love them.   This may sound like a “no-brainer”, but the majority of people that are in the middle of a faith crisis are afraid of losing friends and family if they discuss with them their doubts and concerns.
2. You must love them.   Didn’t I say that already?  Ya, I did.  You get the idea now.  This cannot be the superficial, smiling in the hallway at church, kind of thing.  It must be a real love.   If you don’t possess that, your friends and family will see right through you.
3. Do not assume that they have been sinning or want to sin and are just looking for excuses to leave the Church. 
4. You must realize that doubt is not a sin.
5. Do not assume that the reason for their doubts is because they’ve stopped reading the scriptures and praying. They most likely have been doing those things for a long time and are still wrestling with doubts.
6. You must realize that there is a good chance they will leave the Church.  That is a tough one, but it is a reality.  
7. Realize that for some, either because of  the need to maintain their own healthy mental well being, or for reasons of integrity, it is better for them to leave the Church. 
8. If your friend or family member leaves the Church, you must honor that decision. 
9. If this is your spouse, do not threaten to leave them.  Family is more important.
10. Understand that most Mormons that leave the Church either become agnostic or atheist.
11. Do not accuse them of reading “anti-Mormon” literature (although this may be true).   People have left the Church after reading a scholarly history, such as Richard Bushman’s Rough Stone Rolling.
12. Understand that if your friend or family member leaves the Church, they will still be morally good people. 
13. They must understand that if they leave the Church, you will still love them and not think less of them. 
14. Do not say something idiotic like, “The Devil has deceived you.”  Your roll is not to call them to repentance or to preach to them.  If you do this, they will probably stop talking to you.
15. Shut up and listen.   Within Mormonism, we often think we have the answers to everything – when we don’t.   Many times our friends and family aren’t looking for answers to questions, they are just looking for someone that will listen to them.
16. You must validate their concerns.   Just because you have not experienced what they are experiencing, doesn’t make their story any less valid.
17. Realize that if they have gotten up the courage to talk to you, that they have spent months, if not years, thinking and worrying.
18. If they do want answers to questions, only answer them if you have a plausible answer.  Don’t make crap up.
19. Understand that your family member or friend has been “trying to make it work” for a long time and has probably been in a lot of pain while trying to work things out.
20. If they do want answers to questions, realize that they have been thinking, reading, and studying about this harder and for a longer period of time than you have.  If you want to help you need to study and read A LOT before you start spilling out crappy answers.
21. If you are reading and studying more in an attempt to help, the reading must be outside the correlated dribble that we get in our Sunday School classes and the “white-washed” drivel Deseret Book produces. 
22. Realize that they are going to be hurt and angry and are going to say things that might offend you.
23. Realize that a crisis won’t be averted through just one or two discussions with you.  Be patient.  It could take months or even years for the person to go through this transition and they probably won’t be the same afterward.  Most either end up with a more mature, nuanced faith, or leave the Church.
24. Be discrete.  They have told you about their doubts and concerns in confidence.   
25.  Realize that all of these suggestions can be difficult to do. Do not take this on unless you are committed to all of the above. 

These are just general suggestions that I have found have kept open the communication lines between my friends and family members that are going through a faith crisis or have transitioned out of a faith crisis and have left the Church.  Keeping the lines of communication open without judgement are extremely important during this difficult time and can help save friendships and family relationships.

And it came to pass that the internet was born, and over time, blogs sprung forth.

Without these blogs, one could feel very alone in their Mormon struggle and desire for acceptance.

I suppose the “fish out of water” analogy would apply here. Blogs like Rational Faiths provide a fishbowl for the despondent fish in which he or she can safely and intimately express their struggles to like-minded individuals, or at minimum, open-minded individuals. And it beats the toilet bowl no doubt.

However, the blog platform cannot stand as a complete substitute for real person interaction, especially as it relates to a “crisis of faith”, Mormon or otherwise.

My life in Mormondom is not terribly unique. I grew up in the church and have served diligently in numerous leadership positions from the time I was a newly ordained deacon and up to the relative present day. During my church career and studies, I’ve taken note of difficult and sometimes troubling historical accounts centering on the origins of our wondrous church. The passage of church service and time has not served up any real sustaining resolution. Consequently, I’ve turned to numerous books, some faith promoting historical anecdotes published by Deseret Book and some less than faith promoting literature not published by Deseret Book, but still vetted and reputable. While the purpose of this blog post is not intended to be about me and my cathartic needs, I should like to indulge as I believe there are a growing number of ME’s out there.

Yes, I suppose I am experiencing my own unique faith transition, if that is to be defined as one who questions the exactitude of some LDS historical accounts, as taught me from childhood and perpetuated in thousands of Sunday School classes. With the introduction of new factoids comes the added difficulty in finding the happy place between Rationalism and Dogmatism. Speaking of these concerns freely and openly may cause too much pain and anguish among certain family and friends as well as some irrational judgments about me. My desire for catharsis does not outweigh my desire to broach my doubts with them. Virtually “outing” myself online has been a boon, but not nearly as helpful as speaking to prayerfully selected friends and confidants, as I have done. (And will continue to do.)

The selection process is quite delicate as I would also feel a tremendous amount of guilt if I unwittingly persuaded a close friend to follow me down the rabbit hole resulting in lost testimony. Conversely, I fear talking to the wrong people who may have desires to “sift me as wheat” in an attempt to grow the numbers of LDS dissenters.

Now, the Letter:

Dear Believer,

I wish to discuss a very heavy matter with you regarding my faith. For years, I have been unable to find adequate answers to vital gospel related questions. It seems the more I search for answers, the more questions arise. Now doubts have crept in and I need someone to confide in and even lean on.

I have deliberated over the course of many months discussing these issues with you as it is not easy. However, I trust you to listen without judgment. Please resist the urge to preach to me, condemn me, call me to repentance, treat my words lightly, or dare I say testify of the truthfulness of the gospel in the initial discussion as it would feel almost condescending. At this point I’ve literally listened to thousands of testimonies in my lifetime and I value many of them but this is not the time. Remember, I am not overly worried about my salvation so much as I just want some clarity on (insert doubt here). I understand I am asking you to walk a tight rope here which isn’t fair of me.

For whatever reason, I feel a sense of guilt. I can’t help but contemplate questions like, “‘Why are so many members not bothered with these issues like I?” or “I do appreciate the necessity of faith but am I not worthy of an extra portion?” Please help lift this guilt by responding with unconditional love during the crisis, not with concern for my eternal welfare.

Do you have doubts? Current or resolved? Do we share any? How have you dealt with and made peace with them? I would love to hear that you are okay with my questioning mind and as such, will aid in my search for answers and peace. I would also love to hear you affirm that our relationship will only change for the better in light of this new and possibly troubling information, regardless of the outcome.

Please know how hurt I would be if I found my admission of doubts were shared with others, even if you later confessed you felt sharing them with the Bishop or my parents or spouse was in my best interest.

Lastly, please understand the crisis is not averted after one discussion or within days. Be patient as it may take months, years, or may never be remedied to my level of satisfaction. While it doesn’t seem equitable, please don’t beleaguer me for weekly updates, I will share when ready. Just know that your quiet and discreet support is an immense help and I love you for it.

Doubter

At the time in the contemporary Anglo-American world, there was an endemic anti-Catholic bias, which led Joseph Smith to suspect the accuracy of the transmission of Biblical text from Antiquity through the Middle Ages to his own day.[2] The Book of Mormon takes a clear stance on the subject:

“For, behold, they have taken away from the gospel of the Lamb many parts which are plain and most precious; and also many covenants of the Lord have they taken away. All this they have done that they might pervert the right ways of the Lord, that they might blind the eyes and harden the hearts of the children of men. Wherefore, thou seest that after the book hath gone forth through the hands of the great and abominable church that there are many plain and precious things taken away from the book which is the book of the Lamb of God.” (CofC I Nephi 3:168-172; LDS 1 Nephi 13:26-29)

After the successful publication of the Book of Mormon and the organization of the church, restoring these “plain and precious things” was a top priority for early church members. Joseph Smith and his scribes (especially Sidney Rigdon) devoted considerable time and energy to the project between 1830 and 1833. But the enormous task of revising (and ultimately republishing) the entire text of the Bible proved daunting and was eventually eclipsed by other priorities. Although Joseph Smith periodically returned to the project especially in the last years of his life, making additional changes, the work was left unfinished at the time of his martyrdom.[3]

Nevertheless, the project was remembered and retained importance for Joseph’s family and members of his church, which split into factions after his death. Brigham Young, who emerged as leader of the church in Nauvoo in 1844, tried to persuade Emma Smith (Joseph’s widow) to part with the JSBR manuscripts. But Emma felt called to preserve the manuscripts herself. Previously, in the aftermath of the 1838 Mormon War in Missouri, the Latter Day Saint population fled from the state into Illinois as refugees. Since Joseph had been imprisoned by Missouri authorities, Emma had led their family across the frozen Mississippi to safety, bringing with her Joseph’s papers including the manuscripts of the Bible revision. When Brigham and his followers migrated westward in 1846, Emma, her family, and the JSBR manuscripts, remained behind in Nauvoo.[4]

A decade and a half later, the church organizations of most of Brigham Young’s rivals — Sidney Rigdon, James Strang, William Smith, Lyman Wight, Charles Thompson, and others — had faltered or collapsed outright. But there remained a strong contingent of Latter Day Saints in the Midwest who opposed polygamy and other late Nauvoo developments. These came together to form a “New Organization” of the church and, in 1860, Joseph Smith III (the eldest surviving son of Joseph Jr. and Emma) was ordained as their prophet and president. The new group (eventually known as the “Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints” and now “Community of Christ”) rapidly regathered the Midwestern Saints but remained minuscule in comparison with the LDS Church in Utah.[5]

Despite limited resources, members of the Reorganization felt that publication of Joseph Smith’s Bible Revision was a top priority. Emma gave the manuscripts to the church publications committee, which successfully integrated Joseph Smith’s many revisions into a complete edition of the Bible, published in 1867 as “Joseph Smith’s New Translation of the Bible.” (The name “Inspired Version” was first attached to the title page of the 1936 edition.)[6] The 1867, 1936, and subsequent RLDS/Community of Christ editions included no indications of which parts of the text were identical to the King James Version and which were revisions. As such, RLDS members who grew up reading the Inspired Version of the Bible might have little awareness that particular verses were actually unique to their own tradition.

Because LDS leaders had no access to the JSBR manuscripts and because of the general distrust between the LDS and RLDS churches, the Inspired Version was greeted in Utah with suspicion. Although a few large sections of the work that had been published in Joseph Smith’s lifetime had found their way into the LDS canon in the “Pearl of Great Price” as “The Book of Moses” and “Joseph Smith–Matthew,” the bulk of the JSBR text were unknown to most members of the LDS Church until relations between the churches improved in the latter part of the 20th Century. In 1969, RLDS Church Historian Richard P. Howard published a pioneering and still definitive book entitled “Restoration Scriptures: A Study of Their Textual Development,” which won the Mormon History Association’s Best Book Award in 1970.[7] Agreements between the two churches then led to the inclusion of JSBR or “Joseph Smith Translation” (JST) notations in LDS editions of the King James Bible.

Today the Inspired Version remains canonical in Community of Christ, but is read (or not) along with any other translation of the Bible, according to the preference of the individual member. In our next post, I’ll talk a bit about the revisions themselves and how we can put them into the context of scholarship of scripture in general.

__________
[1] The standard work on lower criticism of the JSBR is Richard P. Howard’s “Restoration Scriptures: A Study of the Textual Development,” [2nd Edition] Revised and Enlarged (Independence, Missouri: Herald House, 1995).
[2] See Richard P. Howard, “Joseph Smith’s Bible Revision: Sources, Claims, and Present Role, 1830–2009,” Restoration Studies, Vol. XI (2010): 139.
[3] Howard, “Restoration Scriptures,” 49–136.
[4] For a summary of Emma’s relationship with Brigham Young, see Chapter 14 “The Lion and the Lady” in Linda King Newell’s and Valeen Tippetts Avery’s “Mormon Enigma: Emma Hale Smith” [2nd Edition] (Urbana and Chicago: The University of Illinois Press, 1994), 199–209. Brigham’s attempt to trade a deed to Emma’s farm in Quincy in his possession for the JSBR manuscript is described on p. 209.
[5] For a brief history of the Reorganization, see David J. Howlett, Barbara B. Walden, and John C. Hamer, “Community of Christ: An Illustrated History,” (Independence, Missouri: Herald House, 2010). For a more complete study, see Mark A. Scherer, “The Journey of a People: The Era of Reorganization, 1844 to 1946″ (Independence, Missouri: Herald House, 2013).
[6] Howard, “Joseph Smiths’ Bible Revision,” 136.
[7] Howard, “Restoration Scriptures,” 6. Quotations here are taken from the revised and expanded second edition.

Are the people in this photo dressed modestly?

I’m interested in your responses. All these folks are active, temple-married, garment-wearing Latter-day Saint adults. I’m the one in the middle with the SPF 30 clothing. (Call me old fashioned. And medically-minded in all things sun-related.) The others are two of my children and their spouses. Each person had his or her reasons for their choice of hiking gear in Moab. Each person felt happy and content. We had no discussion about what anyone wore. And I doubt anyone even thought about the modesty issue because, well, we are all modest people. None of us is dressed to draw attention to ourselves or to arouse sexual feelings in our fellow-hikers. It’s hot. People sweat. Chafing is involved.

There may be a second issue here, which is: When must garments be worn and when is it acceptable to not wear them. I’m not addressing that here. But you are welcome to comment about that if you feel so inclined. That could be an interesting discussion.

What I would like to put forth is my personal feeling that if these adults are all dressed modestly, (you’re welcome to your own opinion about that) a primary-aged child simply cannot be dressed immodestly in something like an orange tank-top. How can a ten-year-old be immodest in a pair of hiking shorts? Well, she can’t. That’s how I see it anyway. I know it’s been said before, but I’ll say it again. Let’s stop the prepubescent immodesty insanity.

And for the record, I think the above-linked article had value. There were lessons taught about trusting one’s own feelings and honoring one’s comfort level with various types of clothing. But the suggestion of relative “goodness” based on what we wear made me uncomfortable. And the whole focus on modesty for young children is inappropriate so far as I’m concerned. How ’bout we spend our time (and printing budget) on more articles about caring for our bodies by, say, going hiking in Moab. How about more stories showing how much we love our friend, Lexie, by inviting her to go hiking with us regardless of what she’s wearing?